Video Widget

اتوار, جولائی 10, 2011

Does the BJP oppose secularism?

A minimalist configuration of secularism affords the maximum freedom to citizens to pursue their way of seeking the truth and this freedom includes the freedom to seek truth through religion itself. Secularism neither denies God nor interferes with His work.___________________________________________________

What does the Sangh Parivar oppose: secularism as enshrined in the
Indian constitution or pseudo-secularism as defined by Advani in the 90s
or both? Somewhere along the road from the 90s, the shrill brigade’s
rhetoric in the Parivar has shifted its attack from aberrations in
secularism as practiced by the Congress to an attack on the concept
itself. What alternate does the Parivar have in mind? Surely it cannot
be a Hindu theocracy? Twenty years after Ayodhya, not one votary from
the Parivar has cared to define what Ram Rajya (Rama’s Kingdom) is or
how it might be worked in praxis. Is the Parivar pulling down a central
pillar of the Indian constitution without having an alternative in mind?

As early as antiquity men realised that gods could not always tell the
truth or they chose to do so in an ambiguous fashion. When gods do not
tell the truth, man must not only find his truth from his own discourse
but in doing so also tell it. The secular idea of the Greco-Roman
culture was swept aside by the advent of revealed religions of
Christianity, and later Islam, when once again only God, or his
priesthood, told the truth. Slowly, the rationality of the Greco-Roman
culture was smothered and snuffed out as the bureaucracy of the
priesthood extended its hold on public discourse. The unspeakable dark
ages followed and the light of creativity was banished from human
discourse for centuries.

Renaissance is wrongly credited with the birth of the secular idea. That
is true only if we forget the 800 years in antiquity when the secular
idea was practiced in everyday life of the Greco-Roman pagan culture.
Our own civilisation insists that each individual experience his or her
own personal God in an empirical fashion. This ideal did not in any way
detract from the faith of those who still chose to consult God.
Secularism then is at least as old as the concept of God in recorded
history.

Much intellectual effort has gone into distorting secularism. In
particular, it has been conflated with the notion of all religions being
equal. This conflation is particularly dangerous because it leads to
the notion that the state must treat all religions equally. That appears
deceptively plausible until one realises that the primary contract of
equality before the state is between the citizen and the state. No
interloper, such as the religious clergy or a cultural organisation,
speaking for a religious denomination, can intermediate the primary
contract and claim “equal” treatment from the state on behalf of its
citizens. Such an act legitimatises groups such as the mullahs and the
Sangh cultural organisations that have no political role to play in our
polity.

There is also a need to avoid overworking the secular concept and
endowing it with all sorts of magical cures, which detract from its
utility. It should be reduced to its minimalist configuration, which is
that Indian laws are made by consensus amongst us as equal citizens
without reference to any particular religion. And they are enforced
equally for all citizens irrespective of their religion. It is worth
emphasising that just the fundamental rights in our constitution taken
together guarantee a secular state for any other notion would be
inherently incompatible with them. So a separate affirmation of our
secular credentials is wholly unnecessary and redundant. Separate
personal laws for Muslims and Hindus should ideally converge into a
uniform civil code. However, their existence does not negate the secular
ideal because laws need to be made consensus and need to be informed by
the governability of the issue under consideration.

Just as gods cannot be relied on to tell the truth at all times neither
can secular laws. Not all aspects of real life are either known or
governable. Laws address but a small sub-set of issues of community life
where a consensus exists and where the issue itself is governable.
There are vast areas of our community, personal and private lives that
are beyond governability where we may choose to be guided by religion,
culture, tradition, family or friends. We cannot govern the unknown in a
pre-determined fashion. We must also actively avoid doing so because
such regulation chokes off creativity, which is the life blood of
progress and development. A minimalist configuration of secularism
affords the maximum freedom to citizens to pursue their way of seeking
the truth and this freedom includes the freedom to seek truth through
religion itself. Secularism neither denies God nor interferes with His
work.

We are not born hardwired for secularism. Early upbringing gives us a
notion of our identity and separateness from the other that is neither
wrong nor inappropriate. This stays with most of us for a lifetime. The
secular idea comes much later in life and is a matter of education and
acculturation. Therefore, if education and experience do not reinforce
the secular discourse, it diminishes. The alternate political discourse
based on religious identities gains ascendancy. This can only accentuate
religious differences rather than stress commonalities and consensus.
It is, therefore, high time that both the main political parties sorted
out their difference on this crucial issue. To let it go by default, or
to politicise the issue as is their wont, is rather dangerous and
disingenuous.

Hinduism as a pagan religion is intrinsically open to the secular ideal.
Unlike revealed religions it is not doctrinaire. Furthermore, despite
the pernicious caste system it has never developed a priesthood that
wielded political power as an organised clergy. [The RSS is in many ways
an attempt to overcome this hurdle to political power but has not
really succeeded.] Therefore, the best way to fight resurgent mullah
obscurantism is to emphasise the secular ideal that comes naturally to
Hindus and put it up as model for others. The jarring discourse of the
shrill brigade in the Sangh Parivar vitiates this struggle against
obscurantism. In fact, it lends legitimacy to a reactionary clergy.
Nothing could be more self-defeating for our polity. The Sangh must
clarify its position on secularism precisely. While it must oppose
appeasement of obscurantist forces and exposes vote bank politics, it
must not throw out the baby with the bath water.

By Sonali Ranade (The writer is a trader. She can be reached at sonali.ranade@hotmail.com)